The available records do not permit a responsible conclusion.
Plaintiffs in US Roundup lawsuits have claimed that exposure to the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup causes non-Hodgkin lymphoma in humans.
- About
- Bayer AG
- Claim made by
- Supreme Court of the United States, court filing
- Published
- 25 June 2026
- Evidence score
- 66 How it was scored
- Last reviewed
- 25 October 2026
Why this label
The scientific and regulatory records point in different directions. IARC placed glyphosate in Group 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans, on limited evidence in humans and sufficient evidence in animalsS1. IARC says its evaluation is a hazard classification, which is not a measure of risk at real exposure levelsS1. EPA has concluded glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humansS2S3. EPA is updating its human health risk assessment, with completion expected in late 2026S2. Juries have accepted the plaintiffs' theory in some casesS3, but the Supreme Court decided Durnell on preemption and did not rule on whether glyphosate causes cancerS3. The records do not permit a responsible conclusion on causation.
Current procedural position
No court or regulator has made a binding finding on general causation in the records read. EPA's updated human health risk assessment was expected in late 2026 as of 26 August 2026S2.
Record supporting the assessment
In March 2015, IARC classified glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic to humans" (Group 2A).
reported similar increases in the same type of cancer, non-Hodgkin lymphoma
Conflicting or limiting record
In its 2017 assessment, EPA concluded that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic to humans.
The EPA has repeatedly evaluated glyphosate and repeatedly concluded that glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer.
Evidence score: 66 of 100
The score grades how well the record establishes this assessment. It is not a score of Bayer AG. Score = source authority + directness + corroboration + procedural accuracy + currency + reproducibility.
| Component | Points | Max | Reason |
|---|---|---|---|
| Source authorityIs the source competent to establish the proposition? | 24 | 30 | IARC and EPA are competent scientific and regulatory bodies, but neither record settles causation in a legal sense. |
| DirectnessDoes the source state the proposition or only discuss adjacent facts? | 13 | 20 | The records address carcinogenicity directly but reach opposite conclusions. |
| CorroborationDo independent records support the same material point? | 7 | 15 | The leading records disagree, so independent agreement is lacking. |
| Procedural accuracyDoes the record settle the procedural state the claim describes? | 4 | 15 | EPA's review is still open and no court has decided general causation. |
| CurrencyHas the record been checked against later developments? | 9 | 10 | Checked against the EPA page updated 26 August 2026 and the June 2026 Supreme Court opinion. |
| ReproducibilityCan a reader locate the passage and repeat the assessment? | 9 | 10 | All three documents are public on official sites. |
| Total | 66 | 100 |
Timeline
Related cases
- Monsanto Company v. DurnellSupreme Court of the United States. Civil. 24-1068.Stage: Decided on 25 June 2026. Missouri judgment reversed and remanded.
- FIFRA preempts the state-law failure-to-warn claim, judgment reversed and remanded, 7-2S3
Revision history
- Assessment first published with label Unresolved.
Have a record that changes this assessment? See corrections and responses.
Sources
- S1Tier A Q&A on GlyphosateInternational Agency for Research on Cancer. Government press release. 1 March 2016.Official IARC explanation of its March 2015 Group 2A classification. It is a hazard classification and does not measure risk at actual exposure levels.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
- S2Tier A GlyphosateUS Environmental Protection Agency. Regulator press release. Last updated 26 August 2026.EPA page on its cancer conclusion, the 2022 vacatur and withdrawal of the 2020 interim decision, and the pending update. It does not give a date for a new registration decision.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
- S3Tier A Monsanto Co. v. Durnell, No. 24-1068, slip opinionSupreme Court of the United States. Court judgment. 25 June 2026.Holds that FIFRA preempts the failure-to-warn claim. It does not decide whether glyphosate causes cancer.Link working, checked 25 October 2026
Other claims about Bayer AG
- Partly supported77Monsanto said in February 2026 that regulators, including the US EPA and EU bodies, conclude that glyphosate-based herbicides can be used safely and are not carcinogenic.Company statement, 17 February 20264 records citedProduct claims
- Outdated86The US EPA's February 2020 interim registration review decision found that glyphosate is unlikely to be a human carcinogen.Regulator statement, February 20203 records citedProduct claims
- Supported95The US Supreme Court held in June 2026 that federal pesticide law preempts a Missouri Roundup user's failure-to-warn claim against Monsanto.Court filing, 25 June 20263 records citedCorporate status
- Unresolved67Monsanto said in February 2026 that a class settlement of up to US$7.25 billion would resolve current and future Roundup claims tied to non-Hodgkin lymphoma.Company statement, 17 February 20265 records citedCorporate status